Menu

The Crazy Horse

“The Strong Horse” author Lee Smith has a piece at Tablet accusing Phil Weiss, Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, Stephen Walt, Robert Mackey, and Jim Lobe (along with the publishers of their blogs) of “using the internet to make anti-Semitism respectable.” I read the piece twice and could not find any instances of “Jew baiting” by Smith’s targets. Smith couldn’t either, so he instead highlighted a few screeds by semi-literate and mostly anonymous comment trolls. Then he turned to Jeffrey Goldberg for commentary. “These guys don’t even understand what ancient terror they’re tapping into,” Goldberg complained, seemingly suggesting that because of the Pharaoh’s oppression of the Israelites in Egypt-land, the pogroms, and the Holocaust, bloggers must not print trenchant critiques of Israeli policy.

Behind Smith’s crude invective lies a deep concern that non-Zionist academics, bloggers and reporters have secured platforms for their views at major online media outlets and inside the academy. They are effectively challenging his Orientalist perspective on the Middle East, which holds that, for instance, the “bloody and violent culture” of Arab leaders is the sole source of violence in the region. There was once a time when such views prevailed in the academy, and when criticism of Zionism was easily dismissed as a cover for anti-Semitic hatred. Smith seems keenly aware that the times are changing, even if his arguments read like the somnambulistic babbling of Alan Dershowitz from ten years ago.

Smith’s rant reflected the same insecurity of those who engineered the campaigns to keep Joseph Massad and Nadia Abu El-Haj from receiving university tenure and who lashed out at Barnard and Columbia once they failed. Indeed, the true targets of his resentment are not fringe anti-Semites but symbols of the intellectual mainstream, from Harvard University to Farrar, Straus and Giroux to the New York Times. These institutions are answering the widespread demand for factual challenges to outmoded, Orientalist views on the Middle East. And all Smith can do is pound his desk from inside the right-wing intellectual hothouse of the Hudson Institute. I can only imagine his frustration.

13 thoughts on “The Crazy Horse”

The Crazy Horse — what an apt title for this brief evisceration of the author of the deeply Islamophobic and Arabophobic tome, The Strong Horse! Smith needs a lot of help. His arguments are mere assertions. His frustration is so intense that he cannot even discern that much of what he finds objectionable is the information age itself rather than the explosion of anti-Semitism he imagines at the crux of his lamentations. Neither does Smith exhibit one single, solitary scintilla of objectivity, for he seems to believe very deeply that all criticism of the policies of successive governments of Israel is the equivalent of goose-stepping to the strains of the Horst Wessel Song. A sad man, growing sadder. Seriously tragic.

Isn’t it amazing that the best Lee Smith could do to show that there is a “open sewer of hate” (against Jews) on the Internet is to cite some off-the-mark post/comments by readers about the US war against Iraq being in Israel’s interest?

If he bothered to read some of the comments by Israeli-apologists, he would find it hard to deny that they are insanely similar to fascism of the worst order.

For example, if he just came to this site, he could find numerous comments by walt kovaks and like-minded Kahanists/Liebermanists calling for either the ethnic cleansing or extermination of Palestinians from Jerusalem or “Judea and Samaria” (a religious extremist reference to the West Bank).

I generally have a rule about authors and self-proclaimed scholars. If they ever refer to the regime of Saudi Arabia as the Middle East’s “moderates” in my mind they are discredited instantly. You can almost smell their bullshit through your computer screen.

Even a cursory glace at a site like Haaretz will reveal the insanity of the rabidly pro-Israel, ZioFascist contingent, whose sole purpose, it seems, is to take the concept of Hasbara and Jewish Supremacism to new depths by openly calling for religiously justified Mass Expulsion or even Genocide of the indigenous people the land they claim.
While Anti-Zionism is a concept that vehement and willfully blind pro-Israel commentators find appalling, racism, supremacism, ethnic cleansing, and Apartheid are concepts that THE ENTIRE WORLD finds unacceptable.

So the question begs to be asked… Is it better to side with a few million fanatics, or many billions of adherents and subscribers of International Laws, Conventions, humanity, and morality?

RE: I read the piece twice and could not find any instances of “Jew baiting” by Smith’s targets.- Blumenthal
MY COMMENT: Speaking of “Jew baiting”, take a gander at this interesting response (comment) to Lee Smith’s Tablet column, “Mainstreaming Hate”.

Jordy2010 says:
Jul 21, 2010 at 8:16 PM
Arent Jewish far-left loons the same kind of monsters who organized the Soviet-Union and are responsible for the deaths of over 100 million human beings???? I see no difference between them and neo-nazis…… when they come into a chatroom they all hate Jews!!! The Mossad shud take care of anti-Israel jews……

While I agree with the jist of your comment (especially regarding the extremist of some Israeli-apologists and your point regarding adhering to international law) I must ask, what do you define as “Anti-Zionism”?

Pro-Israeli fanatics use the word in a very broad sense. They claim that those who oppose Israeli government policies are “anti-Zionist” and that this is by extension a form of antisemitism. The argument is of-course total nonsense and can be dismissed without consideration.

But what does “anti-Zionist” actually mean? Zionism was the idea that established the state of Israel. In that sense, is anti-Zionism an idea which proposed dismantling the state of Israel? If so, then I am not “anti-Zionists”. Neither are most other critics.

A large majority of people in the world want a two-state solution to the conflict. Only two catagories of people reject this.

One category are right-wing fanatics like Walt Kovaks and Osama Bin Laden, who would prefer an ethnically pure solution. They are outright racists.

The other group are Utopians who believe a single democratic state can be brought into existence to accommodate both people. Their idea is admirable but not practical.

But I would only consider a small minority within the first group to be “anti-Zionist” according to the definition above.

Poyani,
Thank you for the excellent question, and for your well thought out and articulate post. I really do appreciate the effort.
There is a reality on the ground that only “fanatics and Utopians” don’t accept, to use your very apt terms. Unfortunately, that reality is based on a very frightening level of racism or supremacism that is completely contrary to our American Ideals, which in all honesty is what most matters to me.
It’s no secret to anyone except the hardcore Israeli apologists that repeatedly stated unwavering American support and FEALTY to Israel harms America in so many ways. A large part of Anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and elsewhere is directly related to American loyalty to the foreign state.
And modern Zionism is regularly manifested through increasingly unacceptable and violent actions carried out by the Zio-Fascist Settler movement, which is increasingly becoming mainstream, and through the actions of the State, which provides protection to the violence of Settlers against innocent Palestinians and punishes the victims of that violence.
That’s what modern Zionism has become. The ugly side which was ALWAYS there, even in ’48, is even more blatant, more out in the open, and less contrite about itself. Israel simply has no shame
Zionism as a concept does not include establishing a “Jewish Homeland” (the very concept is an anachronism, about a century too late), because Israel has been established for over half a century, it’s borders (??) are very secure, it’s economy and military, thanks to US largess, are both stable. So what does modern Zionism mean??
Take a look. Modern Zionism means racism. It means Ethnic Cleansing. It means low grade pogroms and Settler-style mini-Krystallnachts throughout the occupied West Bank. It means collective punishment. It means threats, kidnappings, beatings, imprisonment, and general harassment against a population whose sole crime was to be born and reside on THEIR ancestral lands and homes, property which incidentally has more legal standing than the Zionists’ claims of a “divine property deed” or whatever other ancient mythological nonsense they use to justify their inhumanity towards the innocent.

The Zionist Apologists’ claims of peace loving Israel having “no partner” is more of that same nonsense. For years now the Arab League has repeatedly put forth it’s own peace plan as a starting point for negotiations, with an eventual end result of full normalization and diplomatic recognition of poor little victim Israel, and what’s the Zionist response? Ignore, it, completely. Is that what Zionism stands for too? Blatant lies? Apparently so, because that’s what Zionists have repeatedly done.

Ultimately, all of this behavior can end virtually overnight. Have you ever seen the movie A Christmas Story? Forgive me for using this analogy, but it has always come to mind when thinking of the US/ Israeli relationship.

In this movie, there is a neighborhood bully that terrifies all the kids. He’s bigger, he tougher, and quick to use violence. The bully also has a little sidekick, a toady, who’s the same size as the other kids, and is not really a threat at all, save for the fact that he’s ALWAYS with the bully, so no one dares take him on.

America is that bully, and Israel is that inflated toady sidekick. Without the American monolith casting a large and menacing shadow, Israel would be forced to behave NORMALLY, like the rest of the modern Western world does, forced to make peace with it’s neighbors, adhering to the rule of law, and no longer the recipient of artificial income that keeps it’s coffers full, allowing the perpetual hubris that permeates everything Israel does.

Personally, I don’t care whether Israel survives or not. The only thing I care about is MY country, and frankly, America’s relationship with Israel does NOT serve OUR interests, in fact, it only HARMS us.

It depends on what you mean by saying “America’s relationship with Israel does NOT serve OUR interests, in fact, it only HARMS us”.

Technically speaking, the relationship between the US and Israel does serve the interest of Imperialists in the US. Israel has a very distinct role in the American empire, which few other countries can fill.

Back in the 1950s, president Eisenhower commissioned a study to understand why Muslims all over the world were beginning to hate the US (at the time Eisenhower was facing 3 worldwide crises in Africa, the Middle East and Indonesia – all three countries in question were muslim oil producing countries).

The study’s conclusions were summarized by a member of that administration as “there is a campaign of hatred against us in the Muslims world, not by their rulers, but by their people, because they feel that the US maintains status-quo dictatorships, and prevents democracy and development.” The report went on to state that it was difficult to counter this perception because it was actually true (see the various unpopular Kings the US supports in countries like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, and at the time Iran and Indonesia).

Furthermore, other geostrategic reports from the State department in 1954 were referring to the Persian Gulf as “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history” and would further state that control over the Persian Gulf’s resources would yield “unilateral world domination” and that it would allow a “veto over competing emerging economies”.

In order to bolster the strategy of control, so not to rely on a series of unpopular and shaky Arab dictators, the US government began to rely on a secondary plan. They began to support what Nixon would later call “local cops on the beat”, comprised of Iran, Turkey, and Israel. Three non-Arab countries which physically separate the oil rich Arab states from the rest of the world, and who could be counted on to crush any attempts by Arab peoples to escape their bondage.

The US began to arm Israel, Iran and Turkey very heavily, to create a military imbalance between them and the Arabs. Israel did a huge favour to the American Imperialists by completely discrediting Nasser’s pan-Arabist movement, essentially removing the greatest threats to nations like Saudi Arabia (but too late for Iraq – to this day the US has not been able to reinsert Iraq back into bondage after Pan-Arab nationalists overthrew the US backed King of that country).

The situation today is very different. Both Iran and Turkey have rejected their role as local “cops on the beat”. Only Israel, due to its constant movement to the right and towards fascism, has become more and more dependent on the US. This actually serves US interests.

Most people make the mistake of thinking that Israel is a strategic liability because it creates hatred between the Arabs and the US. This is false. The US government does not care about the hatred of Arab people. They are not relevant. They are considered ants sitting on top of piles of oil which are of monumental strategic importance.

The Arab people would hate the US regardless of Israel anyways. The US supports their dictators and arms them in order to crush the populace and prevent democracy. Take a look at Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, and a host of other western armed dictatorships where the leaders regularly torture and murder their own citizens.

Israel has nothing to do with this. Israel’s ultimate goal is to ensure the “stability” of the region, by preventing any international/Arab movement that would lead to the liberation of Saudi Arabia. In the end it is serving its role competently and hence is serving the interest of imperialists in the United States.

The interest of the American imperialists is in direct contradiction of the interest of American people like you, but that is another discussion altogether.

The right’s strategy of phases
Most of the Jewish public perceives the refusal by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to accede to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s demand to recognize Israel as the Jewish state prior to negotiations and a final agreement as evidence of a hidden agenda. For them, this agenda is based on a ‘strategy of phases’ and the aspiration to destroy Israel as a Zionist state.
By Shaul Arieli

Most of the Jewish public perceives the refusal by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to accede to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s demand to recognize Israel as the Jewish state prior to negotiations and a final agreement as evidence of a hidden agenda. For them, this agenda is based on a “strategy of phases” and the aspiration to destroy Israel as a Zionist state.

But many who believe so are blind to a process in which, under cover of the demand to recognize Israel as the “Jewish state,” another state is developing here – one which is alien to the Zionist vision of the “founding fathers” and is leading to that vision’s demise. Therefore, before seeking such recognition from the Palestinians, the Israeli public ought to first clarify with itself what kind of Jewish state it wants. It should demand that the prime minister work to shape the state according to this perception, and it should be prepared to pay a “painful price” for it.

We must decide whether the Zionist impetus for establishing Israel and its reason for existence relate to the need for a safe haven for the Jewish people (which Theodor Herzl was prepared to realize through sovereignty in any territory ), or perhaps “we settled … because we were commanded to inherit the land,” according to the doctrine of the disciples of Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook.

Historical Zionism viewed the state as a modern tool that would ensure the existence of the Jewish people through the ingathering of exiles and building a society that enjoys sovereignty, a Jewish majority, national security, and economic and social strength. As these elements are more important than historical territory, the borders of a state established according to this vision have no religious sanctity.

In order to achieve the goals of Zionism, its elected institutions have legitimacy and authority to concede parts of the homeland, just as David Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin and Ariel Sharon did.

In contrast, leaders of the Gush Emunim settlement movement through the years have believed that the ingathering of exiles, establishment of the state and maintaining its security are merely initial layers in the process of the Jewish people’s redemption, the completion of which requires conquering the whole country. In their view, the Knesset and government have no legitimate authority to relinquish what was divinely promised to the Jewish people. Lately we’ve even been told that the land is “the wife” which must be clung to in its entirety – even at the price of conceding the Jewish state, which is no more than the temporary “handmaiden.”

Israelis must decide if they want a state that is part of the family of nations, that recognizes international law and the decisions of the international community, or a state in which “the historic right” of the Jewish people overrides every other right – including human rights, civil rights and community rights – and legitimizes ruling over the Palestinian people, dispossessing them and discriminating against them.

In other words, do we want a state based on the foundations of freedom, justice and peace that maintains social and political equality, or a state in which, in the words of the late Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren, no law – national or international – can infringe on the Jews’ ownership and proprietary rights, according to Torah law, over the entire Land of Israel? The practical meaning of such a question is whether Israel should seek peace and pursue it, or adopt the position that says seeking peace harms security and we must therefore “empty the land of its inhabitants.”

Zionism means a democratic state of the Jewish people, in which a Jewish majority lives alongside an Arab minority with equal rights. It means a state that is part of the family of nations. In order to realize the goals of Zionism, we must relinquish 22 percent of the Land of Israel.

By contrast, the vision of the right is none other than a “strategy of phases” to eliminate the Zionist vision – by sanctifying land more than life, by casting a pall over Zionism and by turning Israel into a pariah state. .

So blog posts that elicit a hundred hate-filled anti-semitic responses don’t mean anything because they are from “fringe” semi-literate “trolls” but you recording 6 or 7 drunk American teenagers on the streets of Jerusalem is supposed to reflect badly on all of Israel?